An interesting article from the Philippine Inquirer came out yesterday. [1] This appears to be resulting from the online backlash against Senator Sotto over his purported role in the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, especially as to the Senate insertion of the Section 4(c)(4) pertaining to Internet libel. [2]

If the newspaper’s quotes are to be taken to be accurate, Senator Sotto allegedly said [3]:

“Gusto nila magpa-file naman ako ng bill, alisin na natin ang libel para pwede ko na rin silang murahin (If they want, I will file a bill to remove libel so I can also engage them in mudslinging),” Sotto said in an interview over radio on Wednesday.

“Pwede, alisin natin para parehas na ang laban. Maganda yan, pag-aaralan ko yan hanggang Lunes (We can remove that to have a fair play. That’s a good idea. I will study that until Monday),” he said.

Asked if he was serious about his proposal, the senator said, “Oo, tinatabla lang natin sila sa inyo (Yes, we’re just levelling the playing field.)”

“Hindi na decriminalizing, removing. Magda-draft ako in the next few days (We will no longer decriminalize libel, we will remove it altogether. I will make a draft in the next few days),” he said.

It would be somehow expected that reactions to these statement would be to the effect that such statements would be adolescent, and not one expected from a legislator. I leave that sentiment to others, as my attention is elsewhere.

I. What can we say and how we go about it?
II. For whose interest are legislations made?

In case your government removed the allowance, like in the Philippines, permission is granted for the importation of these articles in your jurisdiction inasmuch as I, as a licensor, has granted you a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual license under the above Creative Commons license.

The Non-Commercial allowance under the license for the works herein extends to the use of non-commercial organizations, and not merely for personal use.